Evolution is not science, its a religion

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish


Darwin? He wanted his research to progress, but knew evolution was incomplete and missing data. 

Does that make the theories of evolution wrong TODAY? (Even if your claim was true) How so?

 

[HazyRigby]

Originally posted by Badfish
Who are these intelligent people?

Me, for one. Thomas Paine, for another.

I have not seen one person EVER prove the bible to be fallicy.

That's because you don't read much. If you'd care to see how someone shows the Bible to be "fallicy," read Paine's The Age of Reason. He accomplishes it quite nicely by proving that the Bible could not have been written by the people whom we think are its authors. Read it.

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


No, that's why history is not a science.

History and archaeology are a science, someone has to research it to present accurate facts.

The bible is a religious text. Like all religous texts it contains history, legends, mythology, stories, morals, folk lore, among other things.

It is also an historical account of real people (many real people) of an era when god inspired men to write about him. And history books do contain legends and folklore and tell about how those people lived and what they believed, etc.

Really? To see why I am actually here, read posts #29 & #33 in this thread.

Ok, but I'm afraid to look.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish

But thee must be something that makes the races LOOK different. Of course there is ad there are genes that Colored people carry that others do not. It must be a gene thing, because we LOOK a lot different.

Yes it is genetic. Differences in populations are due to differences in gene frequencies between them. The most noticable to us americans are differences in the frequencies of skin color genes. There are no genes you can pick and say, "these are the White alleles" and "these are the Black alleles." You can say however, "these alleles are more common in Jews than Myans."

What studies have shown is that other than skin color, facial features, and a few other things, gene frequencies are nearly uniform across all human populations.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Badfish



I have not seen one person EVER prove the bible to be fallicy.

Ahhh the prove it falicy...

I have never seen anyone ever prove that unicorns and dragons never existed, do I have to believe in them now?

I have never seen anyone prove the koran a falicy do I have to become a muslim now?

Infact I have never seen any religion on the planet proven to be a falicy, does that mean they are all right?

You can only prove something in mathmatics, therefore mathmatics is higher than the Bible?

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by HazyRigby


Me, for one. Thomas Paine, for another.




That's because you don't read much. If you'd care to see how someone shows the Bible to be "fallicy," read Paine's The Age of Reason. He accomplishes it quite nicely by proving that the Bible could not have been written by the people whom we think are its authors. Read it.

Can't and won't Anyone can take the bible out of context and distort it easily, it doesn't even take a smart person to do this.

And to what authority do I owe in recognizing your intelligence and knowledge of the bible to disprove it? Are you a bible scholar? Have you studied the hebrew text thoroughly?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Badfish


Darwin? He wanted his research to progress, but knew evolution was incomplete and missing data.

Darwin never recanted on his death bed. I just posted this. Even AiG admits this
http://www.freeinquiryofcf.org/darwin.htm

 

[OldBadfish]

You can only prove something in mathematics, therefore mathmatics is higher than the Bible?

Oh good! mathematics! Well then lets put the three possibilities of the Universe being there. And mathematicians can use math to put the theories of the Universes into three catagories, and remember all possibilities fall into one of the three catagories.

1.) Man created the Universe.

2.) The Universe created the Universe (including ad infinitum and big bang, etc.)

3.) A Creator created athe Universe.

Remember all possibilities fall into these catagories mathematically.

 

[HazyRigby]

Originally posted by Badfish
And to what authority do I owe in recognizing your intelligence and knowledge of the bible to disprove it? Are you a bible scholar? Have you studied the hebrew text thoroughly?

Honey, you didn't say "could disprove." You said people who "dismiss the Bible as a hoax." Which I do. People like Thomas Paine have already done the busy work for me. All I have to do is read what they have to say and decide for myself. But I'll bet I know more about the Bible than you do.

Can't and won't Anyone can take the bible out of context and distort it easily, it doesn't even take a smart person to do this.

Surprise! You ask me to tell you where it's been disproved--I give you a place--and you refuse to go look. He didn't "take the Bible out of context." If you read the book, you would know that. But I suppose you never will, because you'd obviously rather do ANYTHING than actually go out and doing some reading of your own.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish

1.) Man created the Universe.


3.) A Creator created athe Universe. 

What´s the difference between Man and a Creator?

If Man created the universe, Man would be the Creator.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish


History and archaeology are a science, someone has to research it to present accurate facts.

Archaeology is a science, history is a humanity. History like many humanities does sometimes use scientific techniques. But that doesn't make it a science.

It is also an historical account of real people (many real people) of an era when god inspired men to write about him.

How do you know God inspired men to write about Him? Is that a statement of Faith or a statement of evidence? Muslims will say the same thing about the Qur'an, Hindus about the vedas, Mormons about the Book of Mormon, etc. Do you believe that each of these is an accurate portrayal of history? If not, why not? Does it have to do with the fact that you only have Faith in one (or some) of them? If faith, which is untestable or verifyable, is the key part of your belief in the truthfulness of spiritual texts than such belief is unscientific and unconvincing to people who have a different type of faith than you or no faith at all. Basically, if you would have us belive in the accuracy of the bible as you have presented it here, then we must also believe in the accuracy of every other religous work which makes the same claims.

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by blader


Darwin never recanted on his death bed. I just posted this. Even AiG admits this
http://www.freeinquiryofcf.org/darwin.htm

Notes on Darwin
As you will recall, Jim Strayer spoke to us in November on "Crusading Against Creationism". During his talk he mentioned some popular misconceptions about Charles Darwin and promised to supply more detail.

One misconception is that Darwin recanted his belief in evolution late in his life. In refuting this, Jim writes:

It was Lady Hope, the widow of Admiral of the Fleet Sir James Hope, an evangelist, who appears to have preached about the recant that took place during the last years of Darwin’s life. Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, MA. She told the story of Darwin’s recanting saying that Darwin wished he had not expressed a theory of evolution and that he wanted to speak of Jesus and His salvation. It was picked up by the Watchman Examiner. The story spread and has been published in Christian journals as late as 1955 and in creationist journals even more recently.

The following was printed in February 1922 to stop the rumors, but it did not matter to the Creationists. The truth almost never stops the Creationists.

Darwin’s first daughter wrote "I was present at his death bed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case, she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A.... The whole story has no foundation whatever." [Source: The Survival of Charles Darwin by Donald Clark, Random House 1884, page 199.]

How do we know this to be truth? Lady Hope tells a different tale obviously. Is the author of this information a reputable, tested and PROVEN authority on this writing? Do we know this writing is 100% accurate? How can we test it? I take it on faith it is truth, but could very well be fallicy.

 

[OldBadfish]

Who's AiG?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish


Oh good! mathematics! Well then lets put the three possibilities of the Universe being there.

Prove that there are only three. You're asserting this, but you haven't proved it. Maybe you know someone who has and can direct us to your source.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish
Who's AiG?

Answers in Genesis' Article on Lady Hope.

Pay close attention to the final line.

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by HazyRigby


Honey, you didn't say "could disprove." You said people who "dismiss the Bible as a hoax." Which I do. People like Thomas Paine have already done the busy work for me. All I have to do is read what they have to say and decide for myself. But I'll bet I know more about the Bible than you do.

Well I meant disprove.




Surprise! You ask me to tell you where it's been disproved--I give you a place--and you refuse to go look. He didn't "take the Bible out of context." If you read the book, you would know that. But I suppose you never will, because you'd obviously rather do ANYTHING than actually go out and doing some reading of your own. [/QUOTE]

I read a fair amount. Mostly physics though. I am a physics student.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Badfish, you ignored the entire first part of my post... Here it is again for you.

Ahhh the prove it falicy...

I have never seen anyone ever prove that unicorns and dragons never existed, do I have to believe in them now?

I have never seen anyone prove the koran a falicy do I have to become a muslim now?

Infact I have never seen any religion on the planet proven to be a falicy, does that mean they are all right?

If all Christianity has going for it is the fact that it hasn't and can't be proven false, what difference is there between it and all other religions?
They can make the same claim. And remember I'm being nice because I am a Christian to, otherwise I'd go at you with both barrels.

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Prove that there are only three. You're asserting this, but you haven't proved it. Maybe you know someone who has and can direct us to your source.

I just did, all possibilities fit one of these catagories, keep in mind that #2 still gives an out for evolutionists, as it is a theoretical posibility that the Universe created itself, whether by matter/ anti matter collision, or drwn from another Universe, or any combo.

My assertion is that the Universe was created by some intelligent being, it is mathematically more probable, and mathematicians always trust the math.


I gotta go to bed, thanks for the chat Rufus and Hazy, have great night! Thanks for the links and thoughts, I do listen and am a free thinker, so don't label me a closeminded Christian.
See ya's tommorrow,


Peace.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish


My assertion is that the Universe was created by some intelligent being, it is mathematically more probable, and mathematicians always trust the math. 

Show us the maths.

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Badfish, you ignored the entire first part of my post... Here it is again for you.

Ahhh the prove it falicy...

I have never seen anyone ever prove that unicorns and dragons never existed, do I have to believe in them now?

I have never seen anyone prove the koran a falicy do I have to become a muslim now?

Infact I have never seen any religion on the planet proven to be a falicy, does that mean they are all right?

If all Christianity has going for it is the fact that it hasn't and can't be proven false, what difference is there between it and all other religions?
They can make the same claim. And remember I'm being nice because I am a Christian to, otherwise I'd go at you with both barrels.

Lewis, I've seen your dragon stuff before, let me think about it, I'm going to pass out, I gotta get up for work soon.

And real quick, I haven't seen the dragon history books, and I can tell you that Christianity is the overwhelming religion of choice, and there is a reason for that.

Wait, you are a Christian? why the refuting then? What gives here? I am interested in the fact that you are Christian, how does your belief differ from mine?